Re: Draft new DFSG
Avery Pennarun wrote:
> Typically, common sense will help us decide borderline issues. It's been a
> serious Debian fallacy lately that absolutely everything we do has to be
> written down in legalese. The DFSG2 document is too bloated to read, and
> "official Debian opinion statements" read like a novel.
Complete agreement here, I dislike the consitution, the new policy
maintainence system, developers not being able to close bugs in other's
packages, and all the recent buerarcracy of the past 6 months.
> We don't need a
> policy that says "Programs that mail some random user your /etc/shadow file
> will not be allowed in the distribution."
I was of course not arguing for such an addition to policy. If you go back
to the beginning of this sub-thread you'll find I was replying to a message
that stated that (paraphrased) "all packages that pass the DFSG should be
allowed into debian". I am simply arguing against the addition of anything
like _that_ to policy. We as a group need to be able to exercise editorial
control over what gets into the distribution.
(I notice you didn't bother to comment on the huge useless package that
could kill debian point.)
--
see shy jo
Reply to: